When I saw the Matrix Reloaded, there was one scene I really liked, which was the fight between Neo and all the Agent Smiths -- The rest of the movie was a bit of a yawn.
Anyway, I saw Kill Bill last night, and the fight between Uma and the Crazy 88 gang shat all over the Wachowskis' pissy fight scenes.
This movie was cool; and by cool, I mean totally sweet.
Yeah, I head people say "Ninjas are Kill Bill is cool; and by cool, I mean totally sweet" ;)
does part II come out this year?
I plan to see part I s00nz0rs
Quote from: Big Pimpin' Panda on Mon 20/10/2003 03:06:02
does part II come out this year?
Next March or something.
I've been meaning to see this for a while now. Every single person seems to say the same thing: "Well, it's not really a GREAT movie, but the style is awesome and the whole thing kicks ass." I figure I can't go wrong with that.
I'm dying to see Kill Bill...just looks like one of those damn cool movies...
Now, matrix reloaded was pretty lame...
Kill Bill was cool.. I wanna see it again. It was pretty cheesy... in a good way :)
Yeah, I like cheese, when it's done right :P
About the matrix? what was that all about? it was all one big musical.. except the music was fighting.. and almost every scene had something completely unnecessary, like new star wars.
netmonkey, you're right on the money -- it was cheesy, but that's cause (IMHO) it was a big pisstake on all those cheesy Hong Kong action films.
And it's such a great pisstake that it's a piece of art.
Everything Tarantino loves about films is in Kill Bill.
In fact, I have this image in my mind of Hitchcock alive and dandy, watching that huge fight scene and laughing his chubby arse off.
And that's what I call REAL ULTIMATE POWER!
/me watches Kill Bill, gets super pissed, flips out and headbutts the dog.
10 more days.... just 10 more days.....
Where i live theres these asian girls selling kill bill dvds for five quid......
(Infact their`ve got a bag full of all the latest films.......I think they come from the far east)...
I was tempted but i`m gonna go to cinema this weekend instead.....
Mr tarentino makes great films to date anyway....
And i`m gonna make sure the money goes to him so he carries on making great films...
.....and uma is fit....
fOzzzzz
This is the greatest film you will see this year. The greatest film you'll have seen for AGES. It's absolutly utterly brilliant.
Although it looks like an insanely stylish film, all the ultraviolence I hear about turns me off. I'm not a fan of violence in movies... I guess I think about it to much. When I see someone getting hurt the first thing I think about is, "What would that feel like if it was happening to me?" Damn me and my stupid thinking.
Hmm....
Quote from: Mostly at work on Mon 20/10/2003 17:12:08
This is the greatest film you will see this year.
Obviously, this doesn't apply to our forum members under 18. Remember, kids, although seeing sex on screen won't make you want to have sex, seeing violence on screen will make you want to kill someone. ;D ;)
I was a fan of Tarantino before it became trendy to be a fan of his. (I'm not saying it's a bad thing he became famous, so let's not start that debate again!!)
It seemed to me (until '97) that QT could do no wrong! But then came Jackie Brown which was the biggest pile of dung! If it wasn't for Sam Jackson that might have gone down as one of the most boring movies I've ever seen! I thought QT had lost his touch and I haven't seen a movie of his since. Now I don't mind slow movies (if they're interesting) but this movie just put me to sleep.
Soo ... seeing all the previews/hype for Kill Bill I was skeptical ... but now I think I'll go see it because you guys have praised it enough to make me give QT another chance!
The Matrix Reloaded ... well, I think it was quite good actually. I don't really understand everybodies complaints about it. The fight scene with the Smiths looked fake (though it was incredibly awesome ... just looked fake). I think people don't like all the talking and plot developing. But I think, in the end (after Revolutions), it'll only make it a stronger trilogy with more depth and scope.
Just my opinion, but I look for more (now-a-days) in movies than just fast action.
And SSH is right! All the violence in the world comes from the movies (and video games!!) (http://www.twin-design.com/fafmb/graphics/smilies/smilies_wide.gif)
darthMANDARB
I thought Jackie Brown was great -- Forget Sam L Jackson, though, cause the guy's been doing the same "cool angry black man" crap since Pulp Fiction made him a name.
No, the thing that really made Jackie Brown was Robert Forster as Max Cherry -- He was totally in control and so damn smooth.
Speaking of Forster and Elmore Leonard adaptations, he's in that new series Karen Sisco, based on Leonard's Out of Sight.
Is Kill Bill the new Pulp Fiction? I heard thats what Tarantino was aiming for.
m0ds
QuoteNo, the thing that really made Jackie Brown was Robert Forster as Max Cherry -- He was totally in control and so damn smooth.
He did alright ... my problem wasn't with the acting. I just wasn't entertained. I'm glad somebody liked the movie! It was good to see Forster trying that hard though because, in my opinion, he peaked in
The Black Hole
Quote from: m0ds on Mon 20/10/2003 19:33:42
Is Kill Bill the new Pulp Fiction? I heard thats what Tarantino was aiming for.
I hope not - cos let's face it, Pulp Fiction was bloody boring!
:P
sod off and die, mr Puma
Quote from: Pumaman on Mon 20/10/2003 20:47:35
Quote from: m0ds on Mon 20/10/2003 19:33:42
Is Kill Bill the new Pulp Fiction? I heard thats what Tarantino was aiming for.
I hope not - cos let's face it, Pulp Fiction was bloody boring!
:P
Blasphemy! :o
/me hunts pumas.
I had high expectations for Kill Bill, and it totally lived up to them. And yes, it totally does piss all over the Matrix fight scenes, and what makes it even sweeter is that it only had a fraction of the buget used for Reloaded. And what Deegee said. Yay and stuff!
Having seen neither Reloaded or Kill Bill yet, I can probably say that I'd prefer the latter because it has not pretences about baing anything more than it is, which I can dig.
I am going to see Kill Bill tonight so I will return with my thoughts on that later..however I read an article yesterday about the Wachowski brothers and what interesting facts this article revealed.
1. They give a list of influences. Amoung the top being..George Lucas, John Woo and Stanley Kubrick. Opinions on these people aside what about the more then dozen sci-fi authors who have brought up the exact same philosophical questions brought up in the matrix? Hey..yeah maybe they stumbled upon some of the ideas on there own but fuck them if they think they rock that much..
2. They claim Andy is the Sci-Fi fan and Larry is the philosopher. With that combination and enough time and study you would think they would bring something new and interesting to the idea of "What if we were living in a fake world"...Well you know. Besides Sun glasses and camera effects.
3. They retained all creative control on the movie except casting. Warner Bros. choose Keanu to play as Neo and they weren't very happy about it. Warner Bros. say they choose him for "demographical appeal".
After the success of the matrix they are very please to work with him:
'"Now they feel so grateful they have him." The Matrix went on to generate more then $440 million in worldwide ticket sales.'
yeah..
I liked the matrix...as a movie. However compared to much better Science Fiction/Anime/Philosophers before it. It doesn't even compare.
(Not that I am trying to turn this into a matrix discussion. I just figured this was better said in here then making a new thread.)
I like how it had better fight scenes than the Matrix while using almost no CGI.
I saw the first Matrix and enjoyed it, but the second one was a bloody bore.
It dragged on and the climax was so fucked -- Neo meets the Architect, the Architect says some crap, and Neo finds out the real world might not be the real world.
Big fucking deal.
The way I see it, Neo and the Architect should have fought with bigass samurai swords inside a giant, metalic vagina.
That would have been cool!
Also, the Bride would kick the shit out of Neo, even if he has his "wuss-ability" to change the Matrix world.
Let me put it in perspective:
(http://i.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/020916/155947__uma_l.jpg)
So awesome, I want to flip out!
(http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~davidj2/neo.jpg)
Ponce.
Anyway, The Matrix Reloaded was a big pile of shit. I almost walked out of the theatre. I didn't even really think The Matrix was that great, but I was totally unprepared for the idiocy of Reloaded.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Tue 21/10/2003 03:38:40The way I see it, Neo and the Architect should have fought with bigass samurai swords inside a giant, metalic vagina.
Then that French guy could have made the vagina explode!
Remixor, we should team up and make our own version that doesn't suck donkey's balls!
I'm tingling with anticipation already!
I didn't see The Matrix Reloaded, nor do I plan to, nor do I plan to see the 3rd one, but I did see Kill Bill Vol. 1, and let me say I have not had such a great time watching a movie in a while. It was incredibly entertaining, and while I don't consider myself a Tarantino "fan" per se, my respect for him as a filmmaker has skyrocketed. I can't wait for Volume 2 to come out, but I plan on seeing Volume 1 at least one more time, because it's just so good.
Damn you! I couldn't two whole months for Kill Bill to open in Sweden so I downloaded it.
::weeps in shame::
It was still pretty good quality though and the movie totally rocked. Not calling it a best movie ever or anything, but it was very well done and very entertaining. Gonna see it when it opens in the theatres as well :)
There's one version circulating around the filesharers that I downloaded, but it had crappy quality and the text "property of Miramax" or something clearly visible on the screen the whole time...
So I decided not to ruin the experience, but wait for cinemas to show it
I'm gonna miss kill bill since I'll be in Nicaragua when it comes out here
I can't believe it I waited 6 F***** years to see this movie and now I'm gonna miss it, tough luck I guess
I will be back in time to see part 2 though :)
BTW I heard Quentin was planning a war movie called: the inglorious bastards, it's supposed to be a tribute to nam movies (wich he's also a big fan of, see true romance)
Quote from: FruitTree on Tue 21/10/2003 12:11:01I'm gonna miss kill bill since I'll be in Nicaragua when it comes out here
I can't believe it I waited 6 F***** years to see this movie and now I'm gonna miss it, tough luck I guess
It's been in planning for 6 years??
QuoteBTW I heard Quentin was planning a war movie called: the inglorious bastards, it's supposed to be a tribute to nam movies (wich he's also a big fan of, see true romance)
Yeah, Inglorious Bastards is still in production last I heard. It was originally going to be his next project before Kill Bill, but I'm pretty sure it hasn't been cancelled or anything.
Aye, it's supposed to be a Dirty Dozen-style film.
I also heard at one stage Adam Sandler was going to be in it.
I don't know if it's going to be a tribute to 'Nam films, because it's set in WWII.
I really liked The Matrix Re-loaded, and in fact thought it was BETTER because of the poopyness of the CGI (at least it wasn't trying to trick us into thinking it was COOL PEOPLE doing stuff, but in fact showing us a cool puppet show... what irritates me is when CGI is used to make people look like they're doing clearly impossible things to such an extent that we say "sure it LOOKS like him, but I KNOW it's not because that's clearly impossible" because then I'm not thinking about the film, I'm thinking about the animation. Poopy animation is better in a lot of ways).
Also: Pulp Fiction is WAAAAAAY too boring to sit through more than once. I mean, it swings from pretentious to astoundingly dull so violently that it'd make you mostion sick if it wasn't so plodding. I really enjoyed Jackie Brown, but KILL BILL is nothing like any of them. It's also nothing like as mindless as I thought it was going to be, which was cool!
I just saw it and I can say, I love the way Tarantino ads subtle humor to balance out the violence
Spoiler
the way Uma hides the knife from the little girl after she's just killed her mother (even though her mum is pissing with blood on the floor)
Uma spanking the Japanese boy with the sword, classic
The 17 yr old body guard chick - no more needs to be said
Buck Fuck
There are many more less obvious ones, but these things are what makes this movie great.
Spoiler
The realisticness of blood spaying after cutting a head or limb off (although I don't think the pressure would last as long as it did in some scenes. [although I've never seen this happen in real life])
It was actually a really funny movie, which I wouldn't mind seeing again just to find all the subtle bits I may have missed. It was entertaining from start to finish, although obvious what would eventuate.
Very much looking forward to Vol. 2
I can't believe people would even associate or compare any relationship between that shitty Decoded movie or whatever, that was filmed up the street
Spoiler
Also, another subtle touch:
I saw it with my Dad and he said he saw in the huge fight Uma chop one guy's leg off but instead of blood spewing from the stump, blood was spewing from the limb.
Very subtle and very funny.
I saw it on sunday; it was at my local arthouse, and I attended a talk on Tarrantino beforehand. Then, once I got home I found that Jackie Brown (still my favourite of his movies; anyone who found it 'boring' whilst claiming to enjoy his other films obviously only appreciated them on their most superficial level, and can't understand real depth) was on TV; I even got my mum to watch that one, and she really liked it.
So a fun time was had by all, then.
I was somewhat taken aback, however, by the tone of the film. The mindfully constructed mindless fun aspect is definately dominant, but there were some moments where it was genuinely unnerving (particularly the opening, especially with the music in the following credits sequence), and I was also surprised to find myself getting rather emotionally attached to The Bride (rather than getting a mere 'She the man!' reaction I was expecting).
But then, maybe I'm just odd that way.
Quote from: Shattered Sponge on Tue 21/10/2003 15:20:12
anyone who found it 'boring' whilst claiming to enjoy his other films obviously only appreciated them on their most superficial level, and can't understand real depth
Hey dude, be easy on the verdicts
I just saw Kill Bill and I loved it. I haven't been to see a full price movie a long time cause I havent seen any that looked worth $15.. but Kill Bill definately was. I don't think it would be as cool on a small screen.
My bf told me that Q.T. was inspired by watching anime to make Kill Bill, and the whole movie seemed like a live-action anime to me. The dialogue and the character's personalities were perfect. I especially liked the blood spray-effect. Also showing the crazy 88 gang looking all tore up after the fight was a nice touch. I can't wait until vol. 2 comes out. And anyone who likes anime should SEE KILL BILL!!!
Ha ha. I laugh at all of you.
Texas Chainsaw massacre (remake) has a bigger box office... or something.. naah naah..
:P
and we all laugh at you. shuttup.
I have the choice of seeing Kill Bill or Scary Movie 3. What do you suggest?
Quote from: Czar on Tue 21/10/2003 21:13:24
Ha ha. I laugh at all of you.
Texas Chainsaw massacre (remake) has a bigger box office... or something.. naah naah..
:P
...and has been panned by approximately every single person in the known universe. I wonder which movie's going to to last...
I don't want to distract from the conversation about Kill Bill, but I just did want to speak out about Matrix Reloaded a bit.
I've never been a big action movie fan. I like the incredible skill portrayed in a good martial arts flick... (here I was going to add another category of action movie I liked, but I can't think of one). I didn't want to like the Matrix, or The Matrix Part II, and didn't watch them until well after the hype died down (well, as much as it did die down, anyway).
Now, having seen the 2, all I can say is that the action is more fulfilling than most action movies I have seen and is not the least bit unrealistic. Unlike many gravity defying violence-fests the action sequences make perfect sense because they are in a video-game world. As a film student, I was also able to percieve a logic behind almost every fight (the two weakest being the one with the assistant to the oracle and bits of the one with the werewolves) in terms of plot, subtext, character, etc. People live in the Matrix like we would in a fully interactive video game, with avatars that kick but and run on walls and dodge bullets.
I was also impressed with the treatment of philosophy. People who say the movies added nothing new to the old debate have a) missed the point and b) obviously never studied the issue in depth.
For a) No movie has contributed something considerably new to this debate. The debate predates movies--the thing that we get excited about is the treatment of the problem as an artistic achievement--since they all say about the same thing. So saying that nothing new has been contributed is a moot point.
For b) The question of existence Except for one or two, few movies have really even attempted to address the question in a truly philosophical way. Great movies like "Franz Kafka's the Trial" with Orson Welles, "8 1/2," "BladeRunner," "Mullholland Dr.," "Sixth Sense," "Adaptation" etc have all asked weather we exist, or positied a dream/reality scenario, a possibility of fictitously inventing our entire existance and then let the characters and situations run their course. Even though I haven't seen it, I put something like "Waking Life" in the same category. If it's anything like his earlier films, I have to say that putting vague philisophical quotations into the mouths of characters is not the same as contributing to a philosophical argument.
The film that I think comes closest to creating a believable thought experiment (even more so than many short films I've seen) is "The Truman Show" -- which unfortunately hinges on an unnatural vision of human interaction (in part due to the selection of Jim Carrey), and ending because of a logical technical glitch in the idea. The truman show is too expensive to explain all of society (everyone couldn't have their own show), too limited in terms of spacial dimensions, and pre-supposes a real 'better' world on the outside, less phoney, less perfect. Plus, it gives us no reason but reason itself to want to break from the machine.
One of the few to actually engage philosophically (not merely sophistically) is the Matrix Reloaded. Not nearly as good a movie as something like "The Man Who Wasn't There," but an action movie with actual philosophy. Some reviewers clearly didn't understand the nature of the classic thought experiment, but the words make perfect sense in context.
The Matrix is a fully immersive logical experiment. We have never had the technology to imagine an entirely artificial world that could reasonably take the place of reality. Some famous examples have posited a "dream machine" but the world of dreams doesn't seem real (even though there is no logical reason to trust our sense of perception over the more ethereal dream logic), and it's hard to imagine a game that could really fulfill all the conditions of realism. The Matrix, however, is sufficiently advanced technoledgy wise, and some of the special effects are as imaginively realistic as the matrix universe could be--so the art itself mirrors the ideas.
The problem with any program is that it can be hacked into. So people can break out of the machine. This is handled nicely, but it leaves the problem that any machine coming up with this idea would have predicted such possibilities. Thus the matrix-within-the-matrix. But think about what this means. The very disheartening message of the Matrix is that the machines can create a fantasy within a fantasy, and that escaping from the fantasy only leads into another fantasy. What this means is that even if we could "wake up" from the simulation, we could never know that we were really out, no matter how many times we broke free and felt really alive. Even if the real world seemed entirely different from the fake, we still wouldn't know. So the watchowskis have effectively closed the box. There is no way to separate fantasy and reality. Which means we may as well operate in our fantasies with more or less the same morality as we ought to in the reality. This IS a relatively new addition to the philosophy of existence. It's taking Lao Tzu's "Am I a butterfly dreaming I'm a man, or a man dreaming I'm a butterfly" and adding "Or am I another thing dreaming the dreams"
The Watch-out-ski's also have a layer of suptextality that surpasses most better written films. Take a simple line like Morpheus's "Welcome to the Desert of the real." okay. So it's lifted from Baudrilliard. A lot of critics stopped here, thinking they'd uncovered the Watchowski's poor understanding of Baudrilliard, who after all, was speaking about our society, and preference for the hyperreality over reality (the fantasy for the true) in the Postmodern age. But the Watchowski's actually have used his idea correctly. The Matrix IS an attractive one. Much more so than the matrix outside that. We prefer the fantasy world for the powers we would have (or at least the Watowski's would like us to feel that way), and at the very least, the characters prefer the fantasy. So the subtext loops back on itself after another reading. We also prefer the horrible dystopia (another fantasy) because it fits with our imagined view of robot ruled wasteland. This is even closer to Baudrilliard's notion.
The other problem is Neo. Why would the machines allow a super-powered being to gain consciousness. The explanation of the agents in the first Matrix was highly suspicious. I thought it a logical error on their part. After all, while programmers may not be able to isolate a bug, they can at least set up simple boundaries and these programmers seemed to have been to advanced to make such obvious mistakes. About half-way through Matrix II, we realize Neo has too much power, that it no longer works logically. However, the Watchowski's anticipate this. We have the wonderful speech by the mayor or general or lord or whatever of Zion about whether we need machines or they need us. This basically tells us the ending but rather subtlely, so few people recognize its significance. We find that this was part of the plan. The whole God/free will aspect. This Matrix is a further trap, and Neo is not the saviour we see him as. It's all foreshadowed, but like better film-makers, the foreshadowing is only visible when watching with a particularly analytical outlook (which anyone can do, but few use on action movies).
Anyway, I thought the philosophy of MRL was excellent, and shows how little people actually engage with philosophy as opposed to merely quoting it. Here you're asked to interrogate your own existence socially and logically, as opposed to artistically or emotionally ("The Truman Show" having created a stronger emotionally believable effect but less logically sound). The Matrix is not one of time's greatest movies, but it certainly isn't a pile of garbage. It makes excellent use of some good and very bad actors, giving them a great deal to learn, and goes beyond trying to "make us think"
One final point before I jump ship. One of the final scenes I initially thought was really cheesy, I was convinced to see as absolutely brilliant. The last scene where Neo flies to the rescue and all the cars and things are floating behind him in a sort of silly suspended animation--looks absurd. Looks like bad super-man stuff, cartoony. Until you think about how fast he is literally going. Faster than anything we have seen imagined on film, apart, obviously, from space ships, etc. But certainly faster than any organic thing has gone. Things are floating because we are looking at time relatively and he is beating a bullet travelling about a meter while he travels across town. I think the odd floaty behaviour of things that have been tossed into the wake is incredibly realistic, given this context.
Oh yes, and the references to computer science are remarkably accurate. the keymaster being the one lift from computer language that I rememeber reflecting a real thing fairly reasonably.
So there.
:P
Quote from: bspeers101 on Wed 22/10/2003 03:26:58
Take a simple line like Morpheus's "Welcome to the Desert of the real." okay. So it's lifted from Baudrilliard. A lot of critics stopped here, thinking they'd uncovered the Watchowski's poor understanding of Baudrilliard, who after all, was speaking about our society, and preference for the hyperreality over reality (the fantasy for the true) in the Postmodern age. But the Watchowski's actually have used his idea correctly. The Matrix IS an attractive one. Much more so than the matrix outside that. We prefer the fantasy world for the powers we would have (or at least the Watowski's would like us to feel that way), and at the very least, the characters prefer the fantasy. So the subtext loops back on itself after another reading. We also prefer the horrible dystopia (another fantasy) because it fits with our imagined view of robot ruled wasteland. This is even closer to Baudrilliard's notion.
And the deep irony is, Morpheus has no idea that by liberating people, he is participating in the maintanence of the machine. A very filmic sense of tragedy. Another tragedy is the way people in the matrix are treated as they are (as avatars) without the characters realizing that the killing of avatars is killing off the real innocent victims. I hope they address this in the final movie.
Fair enough in some areas some I disagree..However, you skipped my number One issue.
"1. They give a list of influences. Amoung the top being..George Lucas, John Woo and Stanley Kubrick. Opinions on these people aside what about the more then dozen sci-fi authors who have brought up the exact same philosophical questions brought up in the matrix? Hey..yeah maybe they stumbled upon some of the ideas on there own but fuck them if they think they rock that much.."
Hard to do but compare Star Wars to The Matrix. Star Wars core plot is 100% non-original. If you wanted to bare bones it down it is the battle of Good Vs. Evil (Which thousands of stories are the same..I know. Work with me)..Take it a step farther evil turning to be good, related..sorta. Even though at it's core...and even most of it's characters, and objects, and you could argue even many effects were taken from many sources. Those are not the things I love about SW. I love it because the atmosphere.
Find any SW fan, may be a bit tuff they don't go outside often, and every single one of them would tell you how much they would love to run around in the SW universe. It is simple as that. George Lucas made an interesting world..which even many of the worlds attributes could be credited to varrying sources.
I am okay with that though. I can watch A New Hope and enjoy it just because it is entertainment. The problem lies however with taking the film a step further. Looking at it's various philosophical, political and religous undertones. Many of which, unless you were well read in all areas, would be difficult to track down their source upon just researching the movies alone. Lucas does not pay his dues, homage or respects to the movies/books/people in the film as well rarely in any other form. He took many ideas from many sources and put them together. Interesting form of writing as long as you pay your respect somehow. He has not and that is what pisses me off.
Same as with The Matrix. If you don't want to add to the idea at all just introduce it a new way..hey that is cool. You damn well better give credit where credit is due though..
I love both movies, as movies. That is where the line is drawn.
Oh and Kill Bill rocked. Nothing more needs be said.
Quote(anyone who found it 'boring' whilst claiming to enjoy his other films obviously only appreciated them on their most superficial level, and can't understand real depth)
I understand real depth.
Just because it had depth doesn't mean I have to like it.
... and you're mean! (see? Real depth)
darthMANDARB
Hasn't that other movie been talked about to death, This thread is about Kill Bill, if you need to talk about the other one there's a whole 9 pages here: http://www.agsforums.com/yabb/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=6075
maybe it would be more accepted there, just an idea
bspeers, I take your points well and there's a lot of truth in what you say.
However, despite all that, I still found nearly everything in the Matrix Reloaded dull.
The only two parts that I liked were the Agent Smith fight (which as I said pales compared to Kill Bill, which was my point in starting this thread) and the motorbike chase.
Seems a bit superficial of me? -- True, I admit that but here's why:
Although the philosophical 'banter' in MRL seems deep and thought provoking for an action film, it's still a rehash of the concepts stated in the first film (which I liked very much).
MRL presented nothing new in terms of insight, and I think that was my main problem with it.
I think the Wachowski Bros are trying to be very intellectual in MRL, but the whole film just feels like an excuse to make money (copy the first one cause that made squillions of dollars), rather than introducing new thought-provoking ideas.
As I said though, it did present something new in terms of eye-candy -- but that can only go so far.
-----------------------------
As a side note, I love how the hardcore Matrix geeks take it all very seriously -- Like making numerous comparisons between Neo and Jesus.
Yeap, I remember the part in Mark's gospel about Jesus running along the walls before pulling uzis out and blowing Pontius Pilot away.
I think I drew something similar to that for my religion class in second grade. Teacher didn't like it much.
I saw Kill Bill 2 days ago and absolutely loved it.
It was just so stylish and different from other movies that are out. The knife fight near the beginning was amazingly well done, if not comical at the resting point..
Movies like Kill Bill are very rare, as it is not a cookie-cutter hollywood flick and it's not really trying to mimic anything to get more sales. Q.T. is taking everything he likes in his favorite movies and shows, and dishing it out in his own style.
It was a very awsome film, albeit a bit unbelievable. That part with Buck just didn't seem real.. If you just woke up after 4 years, you think you could do THAT?
Anyways.. I forgot the spoiler code so I don't want to say much more..
Awsome film, Go see it.. NOW!
(Oh, and It's not very fair to compare a Sci-Fi action flick to a "Pulp Action Flick" (New Genre, yay!))
Quote from: Robert Eric on Wed 22/10/2003 00:23:07
I have the choice of seeing Kill Bill or Scary Movie 3. What do you suggest?
id see scary movie 3, just for leslie nielsen ;)
Okay to bring this back to Kill Bill I read a review on it in the newspaper today and almost killed some people.
The reviewer said the movie lacked all character and plot and was replaced by ultra violence as it's only "Hook".
"It is movies like these that are dumbing and numbing the american public to what a true movie experience can be"
Then he went on (In the Kill Bill review) to praise Mystic River saying 'This is a movie that handles violence like it should. As a true emotion. even QT earlier movie, pulp fiction, stepped out of the ultra-violence to have casual conversations and keep things interesting.'
He said Vol 1 was nothing but a long preview for Vol 2..in which I just said fuck you and put down the paper.
Under the reviewers credentials it listed him as a leader in radio show broadcasting....on politics.
Then things got oh so clear.
dick.
It's like I say: opinions are like arseholes, everyone has got one.
I think that reviewer misunderstood the nature of Kill Bill -- It's a homage to schlock Hong Kong actioners.
Yes, it's main focus is style -- but so too were the films it was a homage too.
I don't think the movie lacked plot or characters either -- The plot is a simple revenge tale, and the film does go into character backgrounds a fair bit.
For example, the anime about O-ren Ishii's past.
And I am looking forward to Mystic River -- however, I at least am aware of some of the criticism against and faults within Eastwood's film, something this reviewer doesn't seem to acknowledge.
nowadays you can't make a movie like ben hur or lawrence of arabia. because nobody is going to wait that long in a theatre anymore. so if you want to make a movie longer than 2 hours you have to break it up into two parts. i see nothing wrong with that. what's wrong is when people feel everything just HAS to wrap up nice and neat at the end. what about the empire strikes back? that was the best star wars movie ever, but by assface's logic, it's just a a 2 hour long set up for return of the jedi.
i was more insulted by the ending of the second matrix movie. that was even chessier than the ending of the first one. shitty crap crap. and i LOVE the martix!
now kill bill was good. it was the shiznit. and so was jackie brown and pulp fiction and resevoir dogs and four rooms. has anyone else seen four rooms? no one i've talked to has heard of it. but it was cool. plus madonna was in it.
and so what if kill bill was heavy on style and not on substance? we can't just sit at home and watch philidelphia over and over again can we?
to sum up i like kill bill, and the anime bit was awesome.
That said each LOTR film is 3 hours and have proved to be as lucrative as possible. The Harry Potter films are of similar lengths, and they're aimed at the least attentive demographic, in children.
On average film lengths have actually increased into an age we associate with the soundbite, newsbars, txt language and other forms of swiftness for a saturated and impatent public. 90 minutes used to be the norm, but that's expanded to over 2 hours.
Average song lengths have increased too, though you ouldn't get an Inna Gadda Da Vida these days.
Quote from: Las Naranjas on Thu 23/10/2003 02:50:13
Average song lengths have increased too, though you ouldn't get an Inna Gadda Da Vida these days.
That's where Godspeed You Black Emperor! comes in.
Quote from: taryuu on Thu 23/10/2003 02:30:36has anyone else seen four rooms? no one i've talked to has heard of it. but it was cool.
This movie ruled, until Quentin Tarantino's segment (the fourth one). It really made me want to drive an icepick through my brain, it was so bad. I love Tarantino's other movies--Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown are all great, though I haven't seen Kill Bill--but his Four Room segment was just awful. I'd like to say one thing: Quentin Tarantino is one of the worst actors I've ever seen. He is so bad that I almost cannot force myself to watch him. He is an excellent screenwriter and a fantastic director, so that's what he should do. I hated his role in Reservoir Dogs (and his role in Pulp Fiction, but that was short enough that it wasn't QUITE as bad), and his part in Four Rooms was even worse.
Anyway, not that that's out of the way (::))... Go see Four Rooms! Tim Roth is great once you get used to his eccentric style in that movie, and the second and third segments are absolutely brilliant. Just remember to turn it off after those ;)
I think it's funny to watch Tarantino in interviews, since he's such a loser.
But then, it's always losers that can invest the effort of making things as cool as possible, just like the Wachowskis did.
I pretty much agree, except for the Wachowski part.
Quote from: Robert Eric on Wed 22/10/2003 00:23:07
I have the choice of seeing Kill Bill or Scary Movie 3. What do you suggest?
I'd like to point out that the other Scary Movies where both rated R where as 3 has an easy rating of PG-13. Just keep that in mind.
Quote from: taryuu on Thu 23/10/2003 02:30:36
has anyone else seen four rooms? no one i've talked to has heard of it. but it was cool. plus madonna was in it.
I loathe Madonna.
QT's segment was watchable, but very sub par compared to his full length films.
The high point of Four Rooms was Robert Rodriguez's segment.
Quote
Average song lengths have increased too, though you ouldn't get an Inna Gadda Da Vida these days.
Or another Thick As A Brick.
Quotelike to say one thing: Quentin Tarantino is one of the worst actors I've ever seen.
Aye -- I thought Dusk 'Till Dawn was a great vampire film except for his performance.
He ticked me off in Alias, too.
I actually don't think QT is worthy of being judged quite so harshly upon his acting ability. Sure, he's not a good actor, but I've seen far worse performances than his, by those far more practiced in the trade. I actually think the main problem with his appearing in films is that his persona is so strong, whenever he plays against it (as I thought he did in Dusk 'til Dawn, in particular) it's rather jarring.
I wouldn't label him as a 'loser', either - a geek, definately, but that's no bad thing, IMO.
I can't see kill bill alone. It's rated R. I will go with mom. \o/
Quote from: Shattered Sponge on Thu 23/10/2003 13:31:59
I actually don't think QT is worthy of being judged quite so harshly upon his acting ability. Sure, he's not a good actor, but I've seen far worse performances than his, by those far more practiced in the trade. I actually think the main problem with his appearing in films is that his persona is so strong, whenever he plays against it (as I thought he did in Dusk 'til Dawn, in particular) it's rather jarring.
I don't know what movies you watch, man, because I'd be hard-pressed to find too many actors that are worse...
Aye -- As far as great directors who act in films, he's very below par.
Martin Scorsese can act in films.
So can Barry Levinson.
Tarintino can't.
That's says nothing though about his talent as director and screenwriter, which is very, very high!
Call his acting his Achilles Heel, if you will.
Yeah, definitely. I don't want to sound like I'm putting down his talent in general. I friggin love his work, and he's a master of his craft. He just needs to make sure he sticks to the right craft.
Aye -- don't fly with the goddamn birds if you're supposed to swim like a bitchass turtle.
what about QT as jimmy in pulp fiction. i thought he was pretty good, tho i gotta say i didn't like him in resevoir dogs.
but dead nigger storage! classic.
and Madonna is an old anorexic whore who wore out her welcome years ago, and that now she suddenly speaks with a British accent and she thinks she can play guitar and she should go fuck herself.
Quote from: taryuu on Thu 23/10/2003 23:49:23
what about QT as jimmy in pulp fiction. i thought he was pretty good, tho i gotta say i didn't like him in resevoir dogs.
but dead nigger storage! classic.
I thought the delivery on the "dead nigger storage" passage was one of his worst in the whole movie actually. The line was great--it's too bad it wasn't spoken by someone who could have given it the appropriate sarcasm without coming off so weakly. The only line I felt he delivered well in that whole movie was when he was looking at Jules and Vincent in their crappy t-shirts, and The Wolf asks what they look like. Jimmy says "Dorks! They look like a couple of dorks!" That line was itself delivered so nerdily that it actually worked pretty well. It's the only time I've even begun to enjoy hearing Tarantino act in any of his movies.
Because that was the line he didn't need to act with.
Precisely!
he didn't need to act either when he was talking to the wolf about hisuncle conrad and aunt ginny.
oak's nice.
Evil: Just because Scary Movie 3 is PG-13 doesn't mean it's worse.
Frankly, I thought Scary Movie 2 was a waste of film-stock.. Scary Movie was okay but not as good as it was hyped up to be.
I'm actually looking forward to Number 3 cause the Naked Gun director is directing it (His name escapse my mind at the moment) and I love his kind of humor.. Oh, Zucker is his name!
Airplane was brialliant, so why wouldn't Scary Move 3 be brilliant also? (I mean, cm'on! It's got teh Leslie Nielsen!!)
So I finally saw Kill Bill ...
I just got home from seeing it so I'm going to give you my first impressions.
It had great (and I mean TRUELY great) and amazing fight scenes. The coreography, continuity, and editing. Just amazing.
The constant switching of styles and lighting and look and feel gave it it's own look and feel that really worked well with the movie.
The one (and only) complaint that I had with the movie (and this might have been conditional) was the music. There were parts where it was just annoying the hell outta me.
Now I say this might have been conditional because the volume was ALL the way up in the theater. It was obnoxious in the extreme and that may be why the music was too overpowering.
In my opinion music should complement the scene ... give it life, but, it should be ... invisible. I think music is 50% of the movie experience. It's VERY important. So when I say it should be invisible I mean that it should totally set the mood of the scene but you shouldn't necessarily notice it. In my opinion that's good music. The music (and again it might have been the volume) was very distracting to me and took away from the scene(s).
This was just in a few parts. On the whole I love QT's music selection.
But I definately give the movie a thumbs up.
I eagerly anticipate vol. 2!
dm
I think that's your theatre's problem and not the actual soundtrack.
The volume wasn't too overpowering when I saw it.
Theatre have been known for stuffing up stuff like this and blaming it on the film.
For example, (and Roger Ebert talks about this quite a lot) sometimes you'll probably see the boom mics hanging over the heads of actors -- This isn't the fault of the filmmakers but the fault of the projectionist.
I know this because I saw it happen in About Schmidt -- I saw it at one cinema and it had a boom mic in frame and saw it a second time in another theatre and saw no mic (and a better composed scene too)
I haven't seen a movie with so much style since Snatch. This movie is worth watching for the style alone. Each and every scene is just soaked with it.
I think Tarantino put all of his queer ideas, all his goofiness and craziness into this film, to create something basic at its core but utterly cool in its outline. This is a true lesson in cinematics. I did miss the dialogs, but I guess QT wanted to do something very much not-QT. I noticed nobody noted the chapter format - personally, I liked it a lot, I think it adds plenty to the stucture of the film.
Edit: After sleeping on it, I've noticed that the violence is not as explicit as many critics say. Not even close to it. So it had some blood sprays - so what? They were more comical than gory, and I am sure that the "average" American crowd can handle it. It's not like it is the first movie to use plenty of 'blood'. There were only two somewhat gory scenes, and they were mostly-off screen - the one with Gogo, and the one with the eye. I wouldn't call that such terrible violence. In fact, Saving Private Ryan's first scene was much more gory, and there are others as well.
Quote from: mostly at work on Tue 21/10/2003 12:43:46
Also: Pulp Fiction is WAAAAAAY too boring to sit through more than once.
How about 7 times during two months? Or 10 times overall? ;D
Quote from: Sylpher on Thu 23/10/2003 00:33:25
Okay to bring this back to Kill Bill I read a review on it in the newspaper today and almost killed some people.
The reviewer said the movie lacked all character and plot and was replaced by ultra violence as it's only "Hook".
"It is movies like these that are dumbing and numbing the american public to what a true movie experience can be"
Then he went on (In the Kill Bill review) to praise Mystic River saying 'This is a movie that handles violence like it should. As a true emotion. even QT earlier movie, pulp fiction, stepped out of the ultra-violence to have casual conversations and keep things interesting.'
He said Vol 1 was nothing but a long preview for Vol 2..in which I just said fuck you and put down the paper.
Under the reviewers credentials it listed him as a leader in radio show broadcasting....on politics.
Then things got oh so clear.
dick.
I have read such a review myself today. I think that both reviews really missed the point of the film, which is the greatest sin in judging a movie -to try and appreciate it for something that it isn't. This is not "violence pornography", or "even violence for the sake of violence", but "violence for the sake of style".
Quote from: remixor on Thu 23/10/2003 03:35:45
Quote from: taryuu on Thu 23/10/2003 02:30:36has anyone else seen four rooms? no one i've talked to has heard of it. but it was cool.
This movie ruled, until Quentin Tarantino's segment (the fourth one). It really made me want to drive an icepick through my brain, it was so bad. I love Tarantino's other movies--Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown are all great, though I haven't seen Kill Bill--but his Four Room segment was just awful.
I'd say it's shit up until QT's segment. Well, Rodriguez' "The Misbehavers" was nice, actually, but the first two were damnedly horrible. Madonna and a bunch of other half-nude witches seeking sperm? You've gotta be kidding me.
Tarantino's part, although it can't rival his full-length features, was very fun. First, the direction was excellent - I adored the one camera. The humour was much better than in all the other parts, and the ending is hilarious. This, unlike the one presented in the first part, is a true amusing situation.
By the way, I have the 4th part ("The Man from Hollywood") together with the conversation between parts 3 and 4 on tape alone, without all the rest of the movie. I just love watching it when I have free 25 minutes or so.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 26/10/2003 03:27:23
I know this because I saw it happen in About Schmidt -- I saw it at one cinema and it had a boom mic in frame and saw it a second time in another theatre and saw no mic (and a better composed scene too)
You've seen About Schmidt twice?! :P
bspeers - with all due respect I think you see much more in Reloaded than there really is. What I see in the last conversaion between Neo and the Architect is a load of shit, where the creators try to partonize the viewer, by putting many long words in 5 sentances, to create the illusion of depth and wisdom. But in reality, they were just meaningless.
To sum it all up: Is it February yet?
Quote from: Barcik on Sat 01/11/2003 01:46:16
Edit: After sleeping on it, I've noticed that the violence is not as explicit as many critics say. Not even close to it. So it had some blood sprays - so what? They were more comical than gory, and I am sure that the "average" American crowd can handle it. It's not like it is the first movie to use plenty of 'blood'. There were only two somewhat gory scenes, and they were mostly-off screen - the one with Gogo, and the one with the eye. I wouldn't call that such terrible violence. In fact, Saving Private Ryan's first scene was much more gory, and there are others as well.
Aye -- I heard critic say that the violence was pretty much in the style of Monty Python and the Holy Grail (The scene with the Black Knight).
QuoteYou've seen About Schmidt twice?! :P
Ah, what can I say? -- look at my avatar.
Quote from: Barcik on Sat 01/11/2003 01:46:16
I'd say it's shit up until QT's segment. Well, Rodriguez' "The Misbehavers" was nice, actually, but the first two were damnedly horrible. Madonna and a bunch of other half-nude witches seeking sperm? You've gotta be kidding me.
Tarantino's part, although it can't rival his full-length features, was very fun. First, the direction was excellent - I adored the one camera. The humour was much better than in all the other parts, and the ending is hilarious. This, unlike the one presented in the first part, is a true amusing situation.
By the way, I have the 4th part ("The Man from Hollywood") together with the conversation between parts 3 and 4 on tape alone, without all the rest of the movie. I just love watching it when I have free 25 minutes or so.
Yeah, the witches scene was pretty bad. I maintain that parts 2 and 3 were a LOT better than QT's segment, though. Watching Quentin Tarantino trying to pull off a lead role for 20 minutes? YOU'VE got to be kidding me. Horrible, terrible actor (not that that should be held against his other excellent cinematic skills). The ending was indeed extremely funny (though not the rest of it), mainly because of Tim Roth. I don't know if I would have even sat through that whole part without Roth's bizarrely funny performance.
Quote from: barcik on Sat 01/11/2003 01:46:16
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 26/10/2003 03:27:23
I know this because I saw it happen in About Schmidt -- I saw it at one cinema and it had a boom mic in frame and saw it a second time in another theatre and saw no mic (and a better composed scene too)
You've seen About Schmidt twice?! :P
Great movie--I'd see it twice.
Quote from: barcik on Sat 01/11/2003 01:46:16
bspeers - with all due respect I think you see much more in Reloaded than there really is. What I see in the last conversaion between Neo and the Architect is a load of shit, where the creators try to partonize the viewer, by putting many long words in 5 sentances, to create the illusion of depth and wisdom. But in reality, they were just meaningless.
True dat. Couldn't agree more.
I saw this last night with my sister and her boyfriend. I wasn't sure if I wanted to go, (I was kind of worried about the amount of violence I heard was in it) but I wanted to get out of the house.
I am SO happy I saw it! Yeah, the violence is like in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, except more so. On the way back we were all saying "It's just a flesh wound! It's just a flesh wound!"
However, until the end of the first knife fight the sound kept cutting in and out. Someone up at the front of the theatre went and complained, so they fixed the sound. Better yet, we all got free movie passes! Woo hoo!
Yeah, I digged the trashy violence too. It was like those Sword of vengance (babycart) movies - It was so unbelievable that the more unbelievable it got the more I wanted to watch what bits she could cut off or how much a waterfall of blood was gonna come ot - Pluss . . that totally Pscho music when she confronts a nemisis - I was laughin so hard, that made the movie for me.
well i saw it finally
the entire last half of the movie was a flashback and when i saw her fighting Vivica Fox she wasn't missing any limbs or eyes or hair so what does that mean? In the entire last half of the movie no matter what situation she gets into she is invincible cause she has to live to see the first half of the movie...
why should i feel any suspense?
that annoyed me and that's why i was bored during the 4 hour fight scene at the end because it doesn't matter how many bad guys you throw at her she will never ever ever lose
and then someone will say "but the style!! the style man!" and i have to ask what style? during the 4 hour fight scene i can think of a few things, ultra violence [real horror show like] black and white, black and blue
it's still a boring fight scene when it's an invincible character fighting vincible bad guys.
I sure do hope in volume 2 david carradine has a Hand Grenade... then i can finally love these movies
Quoteand then someone will say "but the style!! the style man!" and i have to ask what style? during the 4 hour fight scene i can think of a few things, ultra violence [real horror show like] black and white, black and blue
Hey, what, huh, wait, err, what!!!!
That's what I said to you via PM!!!
YUO RIPPED ME OFF ERIK!!11 U WIL PAID for TH1S!!
As for Kill Bill: My only criticism, which latches onto your point, is that they shouldn't have split it -- It was a stupid decision cause (forget the Vivica scene), she does go on to star in a second movie!!
If they released the full thing, they could just make one long narrative.
However, remember this is Tarantino -- the same guy who had John Travolta alive, then dead, then alive again in Pulp Fiction.
The man is a zombie maker.
And I'm sure he's going somewhere good with this.
Keep in mind that Vivica and Lucy will be in Vol 2, even though they're dead -- Maybe he's going to play around with what happened in Vol 1 -- you never can tell.
(On a different note, Travolta's career took an opposite turn to Vincent Vega's life: dead, then alive, and really dead now)
Eric, it is a homage to old B-movies, it's somewhat obvious the main character has to easily win 3954954 warriors at once, even without the first chapter. And there is a Volume 2 for her to star in....
As for suspense, I think you can rest assured that the ending will be far from obvious with QT.
Well...
(If you haven't seen the movie and you highlight don't get mad at me)
Spoiler
We still don't know why Bill and the gang killed everyone at her wedding. Why she was having a secret wedding in the first place and how the hell she got a crap load of money to fly all the way to Japan and get the sword and back..
(Really this one you don't want to highlight I mean I'm not kidding if you haven't seen it just don't..DON'T!)
Spoiler
And she doesn't know about the baby..
Spoiler
Sylph said:
...how the hell she got a crap load of money to fly all the way to Japan and get the sword and back..
Sylph stopped saying.
I think that was probably one of the many anachronisms in the film, like how she managed to stay in that carpark for thirteen hours without being caught, or how a sword-maker managed to forge what was alledgedly his finest katana in a single month (although magically managing to get all that money wouldn't actually qualify an anachronism, but anyway); this is a ''Movie movie', according to Mr. Tarrantino, so stuff like that doesn't matter.
Spoiler
All work and no play makes Daniel a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Daniel a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Daniel a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Daniel a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Daniel a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Daniel a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Daniel a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Daniel a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Daniel a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Daniel a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Daniel a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Daniel a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Daniel a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Daniel a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Daniel a dull boy.
Spoiler
*Shattered Sponge divorces DeeGee
Spoiler
TOO LATE!
*DGMacphee chops down Sponge's door with an axe!
HEEEEERE'S DANNY!!!!!
I haven't seen it...
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
AAARGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.... Overdose!
Spoiler
barcik, but the end was totally obvious of the first one
and i don't care if it's an homage to b movies i can still feel suspense when i see Bruce Lee kicking ass because in the movies i've seen they've been in real time and not a flashback
not that all movies in flashbacks suck but i don't think it worked well for this movie in my opinion.
and sylph: in the entire movie there are only what 4 cops? this i accept cause it's an action movie and it's a staple of the genre, if cops are anywhere they only appear at the end or to push the action out of the current room into another or into a high speed chase or some such.
I can't say that it can really lay calim to be homaging Lee. It's far more like all the film Lee was reacting against.
But then again, people thing Baroque music is "Classical"...
saw it last night, I liked it alot more than the matrix, but it wasn't super great, I prefered snatch in terms of style...
I agree that the music was a little repeditive and annoying, mainly in the anime sequence...
Spoiler
and what airline allows you to carry swords with you?
I heard that the black and white bits were made like that simply to please the censors, but were in full colour in some countries. Anyone seen the colour versions? I imageine it must be quite a bit more gory...
Spoiler
The airlines in a movie universe where a person can take out 88 people in a matter of minutes.
Actually, the plane has special holders next to the seats intended to be used for katanas people carry on board. A leftover from the original script in which everyone carried katanas around.
Spoiler
I think that'kll be in the director's cut, Esseb.
Aight, I got to jump in here and make some claims.
Eric - I have to accuse you of "sloppy seconds syndrome" in this scenario. The hype has been released by the time you watch it, you can't help but think how widely accepted of a movie it is, and you want to find something wrong with it. This is a bold claim, I realize.
The rationale:
A. Eric assumption #1: people see movies based on curiosity of how many body parts or lives the main character escapes with.
Jesse claims false based on the fact that linear movies are full of archetypes, especially one where the hero survives unscathed. Even some of the biggest post modern fans would boo at the screen if the hero died at the hands of the enemy. It's not anticipated for the hero to die, it's anticipated for the hero to go from point A to point B in the most intense and interesting way as possible.
I don't see enough non-linear films these days, and I argue the structure was interesting (i.e: Audience questions such as "why the hell is she driving a truck that says Pussy Wagon?" which are answered later often in a comical way). We can't call these "flashbacks," as there is no linear path of time we are following- flashbacks normally occur as dream sequences or what have you- and are a major cop out. Kill Bill was done in chapters, and I really like the order so far.
There's also the point that in non linear films, time matters less- meaning she can get scarred, bruised, burned, stabbed, or any number of things- and it will have no bearing on the scene you are currently watching because it happened four months ago etc.
One thing is for sure- QT really teased us with Madsen and Kerradine and those guys are definitely worth seeing the second one for me.
The night I saw Kill Bill, Gordon Liu was in attendence and my friend and I interviewed him despite his translator being horrible. Gordon plays two characters- the leader of the crazy 88s and the ping whatever guy who stands on Uma's sword. Neat guy.
Oh, Eric, to boot!
Your claim that the scene with Vivica cuases you to feel little suspense is justified. However, that is not the last scene of the movie- she still has to get to Bill.
But I argue this:
Making the structure linear would have raised no more suspense than exists in the non-linear story. Reason being? The list itself! Of course she will kill every name on that list up to Bill! Of course she will face Bill in the final showdown!
The only question is: Will she Kill Bill? there's your suspense, and I doubt the showdown will be anywhere near the beginning of the second movie. I really am digging the non-linear ness, and who knows- maybe we will see a very good reason for its use in the next film. (but I'm not defending its use like Matrix 2 fans defended against people who KNEW the 3rd movie was going to suck: "Dude, you can't say anything until you see how cool the third one will be!) Hehehehe.
I love you eric
Quote from: even wolf on Sun 09/11/2003 04:36:34
The rationale:
A. Eric assumption #1: people see movies based on curiosity of how many body parts or lives the main character escapes with.
i can't respond to any of this until i know what this means and where you got this from
that and the most hype i got from this movie was 1 preview i saw and jess saying it's a great movie and my brother saying it's a terrible movie oh and grundislav seeing it 3 times or some such nonsense
and while i'm waiting on that:
"Your claim that the scene with Vivica cuases you to feel little suspense is justified. However, that is not the last scene of the movie- she still has to get to Bill."
But i did feel suspense with the Vivica fight cause to me at that moment that was real time and to me that still is real time. So what happened before that? Hospital/Oishii. I didn't feel suspense over the 9 hour fight scene where she beat up half of Japan. One can claim "You aren't supposed to feel suspense you're supposed to laugh, it's a joke! C'mon she cut a guy in half!" and I say "I got that joke before I went and saw the movie and I guess it just wasn't funny to me."
and for the second sentence that makes no sense... the last scene of the movie, since we all saw it is
Spoiler
bill and the lawyer
i could care less if you say there's a sequel coming out, that scene is the last scene of THAT movie. And i can't really see how you aren't saying that I'll have to watch both movies in order to enjoy the first one. I'm not sitting here gripping my hemorroid donut in suspense every second of the day wondering if she'll kill bill or not... and i didn't grip my travel hemorroid donut at the theater once except for the fight with vivica fox.
so i think the one thing we can all learn from this is that eric has a horrible horrible hemorroid condition
Because you're looking at it as two sepearte movies, when it's supposed to be one whole movie.
Perhaps the flashback would be justified in the context of the whole movie because it's basically an introduction to The Bride's character, and shows her in action (i.e she can escape from hospital, get a sword for free, and then kill 88 guys, plus others that get in her way).
That's why I say the only real problem with the movie is it's cut in half (It was intended as one whole moive, rather than two halves).
If it were one whole movie, the flashback would be acceptable as it's basically an introduction and the full movie can build from then on in real time.
But the Harvey W is a dick for making Miramax cut Tarantino's baby in half.
Other successful movies use this flashback and episodic convention.
E.g. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon -- You know she's not going to stay with the bandit king in the desert flashback as she's getting married in real life.
However, in the context of the full movie, this is justified as it gives background to both character and their relationship.
If Kill Bill was shown in full, the O-ren Ishii fight flashback would probably be in the same place as CTHD's flashback in terms of narrative structure.
Harvey W made Miramax cut it in half? I thought he mentioned it out loud near the end of shooting, QT thought it was a good idea and went and made a raw edit of what would be the first part. After it was finished it was decided at the last moment to go with two parts.
Unless I'm misinformed. I'll see if I can dig up the interview.
Slaughterhouse 5, as a pioneer in non linearity, manages to keep suspense.
But that's because it probably had more than style going for it :p
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 09/11/2003 05:36:48
Because you're looking at it as two sepearte movies, when it's supposed to be one whole movie.
...
If Kill Bill was shown in full, the O-ren Ishii fight flashback would probably be in the same place as CTHD's flashback in terms of narrative structure.
ARRGH!!! but it wasn't and it isn't!! so how am i supposed to look at this movie as anything but a movie?
and since the second movie isn't out yet how can anyone say the first movie was good since you're supposed to look at it as a whole? people should say "the first 2 hours was good but i haven't seen the last 2 hours yet, i have to wait till march..."
bah whatever, i don't care anymore, i'm glad people like the movie and i would love to love the movie because as i said to DG in private. i don't like not liking movies i paid or that have promise. my girl loved it and many people i know and who's opinions i trust love it [even though grundislav likes austin powers, he loves donnie darko so it's ok] i'm not trying to tear down this movie cause i hate it on some awkward level
true, the two part deal isnt a marketing strategy so much as it is the studio laying it down on QT. In their defense, the guy did write one monster of a script however, and I doubt he settles for much as far as cutting down.
Eric, I misphrased myself - by seeing the first part you pretty much ARE committing to seeing the second. What I'm saying is that unlike Matrix 2 fans, I won't tell you your argument doesn't have any credibility until the series is over. I'm saying you have no credibility because the style man, the style!!!11!1!!!
the style being a non sequential movie shown in chapters stretching over two movies?
or the style being an homage to 70's kung fu movies?
or the black and blue fight scene?
Esseb: I got the impression that it was the Miramax exec's decision to cut it, going on what I read in IMDB -- then again, I could be wrong.
Eric: Don't worry, we're not going to burninate you for thinking "Meh... No big deal..." -- I think we're trying to discuss narrative and style in general.
Evenwolf: Aye, I agree, I don't think it was a marketing strategy -- I think it's more that the Miramax bosses thought audiences couldn't handle a four hour movie.
Eric no.2 (on style): Maybe it's more so the combination of those things and doing it successfully.
Kinda like thinking: Wow, a lot of precise work went into little ball of energy.
And I think that's why I dig it -- It manages to successfully combine several different styles without letting the pace drop -- And I can't help but look at the scene and think "Wow! I sure am going to remember THAT!"
(http://www.sausagenet.co.uk/prog/diffrentstrokes/diffrentstrokes_0.jpg)
i still don't understand how the style takes away my cred' [as we say on the streets] when it's my opinion
Oh, you thought Kill Bill was simply an homage to kung fu movies?
There's homages in there to kung fu (Street Fighter, BlackBelt Jones etc), sure. But mostly we have exploitation, spaghetti westerns, GoodFellas, and your good old revenge movies such as "I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE!!" (which I saw last night with Joe Bob Briggs of MonsterVision fame live in attendence!) And QT does overdo homages to the point that you question if he does anything but arrange pre-existing anecdotes.
But I'd say alot of other directors do that as well, just not as obviously or consciously. And I'd say QT is doing the original films justice by creating interest and press. Typically every year Quinton comes to Austing and shows his favorite movies, and he goes on and on about why theyre so goddamn awesome. He's there in the theatre- you can see his passion. You can see his desire to generate similar scenes is genuine, or pure nostalgia. I imagine in that regard, if QT joined AGS he would be a newbie who immediately starts recruiting for a Monkey Island fan game. It might be naive and unjust but God Bless him!
Eric, I didn't say your arguement has no cred.
I'm only trying to explain why I liked and reasons why some people might find it a bit "meh" (like the split in half thing).
Even: LOL -- If QT came to AGS, I'd certainly like to see his MI fangame!
"What does Herman Toothrott look like??? Does he look like a BITCH!!!"
no i didn't think it was just an homage, but like i said, i don't think it's the best movie he's ever done and i don't think it's the second coming of christ movie wise, i think it's a movie that was entertaining in some points but fell flat for me
What?!?! Oh now you're argument lack credibility!!!1~
Of course it's the best movie ever!!!
It IS the 2nd coming of Christ!!!
I give it 5000000/10 stars!!!
Your just jelous cause QT is making cool movies and your not!!!!
SO THERE!!!
-DG
p.s. QT ROOLZ!!
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 09/11/2003 05:36:48But the Harvey W is a dick for making Miramax cut Tarantino's baby in half.
Let's just call him Solomon.
Har har har, i r teh funy.
There can be another reason the fight with the Crazy 88 is after the one with Vivica. That fight scene is obviousy the big scene of this movie, and big scenes need to come in the end.
yea but that doesn't matter at all barcik one could just remove the HUGE fight scene and add in the fight scene between Vivica Fox and Uma Thurman at the football stadium at the end, there big fight scene
it's a big fight scene cause it's at the end and i doubt he made the movie nonlinear cause he wanted to have a large fight scene at the end of the movie
Hey now, what's all this talking about Grundislav behind his back? :P
I only saw Kill Bill once, I enjoyed it, but I didn't go around touting it as the best thing since sliced bread.
And don't judge me based on the movies I like! ;D
ah shut up ya filthy pirate!
and i don't judge you on the movies you like but on how well you can dance...
so i think you know where we stand
Well geeze eric, I think there are some REAL issues involving the order of scenes that may seem subtle, but to QT as a writer- must be crucial.
The Vivica Fox fight scene is a pivotal point in character development for the bride. We see the sense of honor she has, only attacking when fair to do so. We also see that Vivica's character is not as honorable and therefore the stadium tangent does not take place. We begin to see that these people deserve to die.
The epic scene at the House of Blue Leaves was a great, thought out scene. One camera shot was mind boggling - it seems as if QT put a steady cam operator on a crane to go over the entire set, and then had him jump off to go through a door frame and continue on ground.
The characters were all pretty cool, including "Charlie Brown" and the last 88 whose life she spares. I don't think "BAM!, switch this scene with a stadium showdown and there's a good movie" is plausible. I don't think a filmmaker has to have as revolutionary an idea as Memento to use a nonlinear structure. It's simply that QT chose to develop the characters and reveal information in a particular format rather than make a ton of compromises- which ultimately would have deluded the original concept QT had. But that's just my argument, and I totally respect yours and woud love to hear more if you're not already sick of talking about it.
Now that I think about it, I'm sure QT is going somewhere with the whole Oren flashback, and here why I think so:
Why didn't he just make Vivica Fox first on the list, then follow it with Oren-Ishii?
Why did he make Oren-Ishii first and choose to go into flashback?
Surely, there must be a reason for such a decision.
I mean, it's looks very easy to switch the film to a conventional narrative -- So, why the flashback?
Maybe we'll find out in Vol 2?
Haha, I was going to mention the order of the names on the list DG- but that would have been a weak part of my argument. I do have beliefs on why the names are on the list a certain way, however, along with the fact that the scenes are shown out of order.
For one- we know certain characters are probably easier to kill then others. She could have made the list for other practical reasons such as geography - which at first doesn't make sense considering she went to Japan first- but then it does make sense because you realize she went to Japan first for the sword, and then the kill. I can imagine to some the scene about the sword was really dumb- but I really liked how much weight the sword carries. I get sick of movies where weapons are used casually - come out of nowhere and carry no significance other than where the bullet hits (Matrix for example).
I think the linear structure wouldn't have worked if we first saw the Bride wake up, leave the hospital, and then go to japan, then kill oren, then travel back for Vivica. Not because the order isn't plausible- but because QT would have had to go absurdly out of his way to put character development in places that aren't natural.
QuoteI think the linear structure wouldn't have worked if we first saw the Bride wake up, leave the hospital, and then go to japan, then kill oren, then travel back for Vivica. Not because the order isn't plausible- but because QT would have had to go absurdly out of his way to put character development in places that aren't natural.
Yeah, but a linear structure would have worked if Vivica was the first name on her list.
However, I also think the names are ordered the way they are for specific purpose -- Only time will tell.
this is so frustrating cause it doesn't seem like anything i say matters to you even. i don't know what i expect i guess just not these broad generalizations as to what i thought about the movie or something.
"The characters were all pretty cool, including "Charlie Brown" and the last 88 whose life she spares. I don't think "BAM!, switch this scene with a stadium showdown and there's a good movie" is plausible."
i take it this is in response to my reply to barcik?
well first here's a silly reply that means nothing cause i don't care and it didn't happen: that's the only way to transition from one scene to the next with a bam and an exclamation mark? come on, if he's such an amazing writer that's all you give him credit for?
and now here's this... why did i sit through an entire back history of Ishii when i know she's dead anyway? that was quite jarring wouldn't you say in a BAM! type way? Mostly cause it's not live actors anymore but animation. Maybe I'll learn about the reasons for learning about Ishii but how come i didn't learn about Vivica? Wouldn't we like to know why these people are who they are but we just learn about Ishii. Maybe we'll learn who Vivica is in the second movie and maybe it'll be done through puppets or something, but wait since she's black and Ishii is japanese and they used anime to portray it i guess they'll have to use old jazz singers to sing a song about Vivica's life. [i'm joking obviously]
again, maybe the second movie answers all these questions as to why she kill Ishii first and then Vivica Fox last [i like to think that Vivica Fox didn't know they were making a movie and they just busted up on her and beat the shit outta her and that she normally keeps guns in her cereal [which brings up another question, when the dad comes home and he's sad and they're packing up mommy's things will they find guns in like everything? "These aren't tampons, they're guns! [which brings up another question, if the kid didn't come home would Vivica had said "Now if you'll excuse me, i have to go put a tampon in..."] ] ]
i'm going to go watch family guy now
eric
Ishii's death is kinda the same as Vincent Vega's in Pulp Fiction.
He dies halfway through the film, yet you see him at the end walking away with Jules from the restaurant -- Jules has made the decision to quit being a gangster and walk the earth while we see Vincent move towards his inevitable death.
I think it's similar to Ishii's death, because we see this background of a vengeful character who has an absolute bloodlust -- Yet, she still manages to get taken down by The Bride.
That's another aspect that interests me in terms of conflict -- Yes, Ishii dies, we know that.
However, what I wanted to know was this: HOW the hell did The Bride manage to defeat such a strong enemy, especially considering Ishii's been killing people since childhood?
Yeap, we know the result of that particular episode, but it's enjoying the journey (answering the HOW party) that's the interesting part.
At least, that's what I found.
am I really making broad generalizations? I'm sorry if I am but it sounded to me like your reply to barcik was to say as if writing was a big mix n' match - and the stadium scene would have worked better.
I argue with that statement, regardless if its yours or not- claiming that filmmakers often start with a visual idea or a certain scene as the hub of their film- and form their story around it. And the fact that QT put so much emphasis on the House of Blue Leaves indicates to me that this scene is probably one of the first images of Kill Bill that manifested in QT's mind. And therefore if producers forced QT to replace the scene with something else exciting - could possibly have depleted QT's motivation for the film.
what am I misreading eric? I guess this argument is suffering because your statements have a certain ambiguitity to me, possibly due to your apathy. To argue against your claims has nothing to do with my thoughts about you or your character. Sorry I have opinions.... about film.... I am a film student.... and ..... anal retentive ... and looking to start shit! Yeah!
Reason for Ishii background:
She is the head of a rather large organized crime syndicate or whatever. She holds a huge position of power. Why an assassin of equal rank to the bride came to be so powerful needs explanation as well as building up. Ishii had multiple characters under her control and she served as the boss character for the entire chapter.
Reason for anime:
I haven't the slightest clue. When I saw it, it was the most bizaare thing to me. I have no argument for this at the moment, but it certainly didn't bother me. Since the movie was divided into chapters- it worked well I thought rather than going from a live action frame directly into animated.
Reason Vivica had no background chapter:
She's a housewife and mother. Her wedding and pregnancy I'm assuming would have slowed down the pace of the movie just a bit. Rather - there was dialogue to establish her relationship to the Bride: "I should have been Black Mamba" etc. Also, we had to see Vivica without history because her scene is so short and gimmicky. The style of the scene is nowhere near as elaborate as Ishii's. Again, I argue QT had little devotion to this scene then he did House of Blue Leaves.
The movie was decided to be split up after the filming was mostly done right? I'm only guessing now, but maybe the O-Ren bit would take place first if it was kept as one movie. If so I see no need to defend it based on his skills as a script writer. Now where's that original script that's been floating around?
I've gotten myself the soundtrack of this movie, and it's bloody cool as well. Total divese, mostly-instrumental wackiness. Absolutely great! :)
I thought the usage of the instrumental music was great, but my favorite song on the soundtrack was actually that "Bang, Bang" song, sung by Nancy Sinatra if I remember the credits correctly. I don't recall who wrote it.
Quote from: Esseb on Mon 10/11/2003 07:55:40
The movie was decided to be split up after the filming was mostly done right? I'm only guessing now, but maybe the O-Ren bit would take place first if it was kept as one movie. If so I see no need to defend it based on his skills as a script writer. Now where's that original script that's been floating around?
Actually after the script was written and before shooting they split it into two volumes, they couldnt figure out how to put it all in one movie (and not have it 4/5 hours long)
The origional script was done durning the filming of pulp fiction, I cant remember if it was Uma that brought the idea to Quin, or he thought of it and went to her, either way it was a combined effort between the two of them... to what extent I dont remmeber...
The full details are kinda fuzzy... it was on some special I was watching about Quin and his movies...